Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD92167
Case Number: LCR13698
Section / Act: S20(1)
Parties: FAS - and - A WORKER
|
Subject:
Dispute concerning Section 8 (Paragraph 2) of the Negotiating Procedures from the FAS/SIPTU Industrial Relations Procedures Agreement.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the submission made by the worker in
which it is asked to interpret the provisions of Clause 8
(Paragraph 2) of the FAS/SIPTU Industrial Relations Procedures
Agreement. The Court is satisfied that the wording of the
paragraph in question leaves the question of a reference to the
Court of any particular issue as a matter of choice of the
parties either of whom can validly refuse to support a reference
to the Court.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92167 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13698
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: FAS
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning Section 8 (Paragraph 2) of the
Negotiating Procedures from the FAS/SIPTU Industrial Relations
Procedures Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. Since 1989 the worker has been pursuing an issue with FAS
arising out of his failure to secure appointment to a post of
Training Adviser.
3. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and was the subject of a conciliation conference held on 14th
February, 1991. The worker, through his Union, subsequently
requested a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. F.A.S. advised the Industrial Relations Officer
that it was not prepared to attend a Labour Court hearing.
4. The worker considered that F.A.S.'s refusal to attend a
Labour Court hearing was in breach of Section 8 (Paragraph 2) of
the F.A.S./SIPTU Industrial Relations Procedures Agreement which
reads:-
"8. It is the firm intention of the parties to this
Agreement to make every effort to reach agreement on all
disputes either through direct negotiation or through
conciliation as provided for above and to handle all issues
arising between them fairly and expeditiously.
If, however, despite their best efforts a particular
dispute remains unsettled, and either party wishes to
pursue the matter further, the matter may be referred, on
the basis of a joint request, to a full hearing of the
Labour Court."
5. F.A.S. denied that it was in breach of the agreement and
maintain that the agreement gives either party the right to
refuse to attend a Labour Court hearing. The worker referred
the issue to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 5th June, 1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker has made every effort to resolve the
dispute between him and F.A.S. through procedures. He is
concerned that F.A.S.'s refusal to attend a full Labour
Court hearing will leave the matter unresolved.
2. F.A.S. should agree to a joint referral to the Labour
Court as prescribed in the agreement.
3. F.A.S.'s refusal to use the full services of the
Labour Court is contrary to good industrial relations
practice.
FAS ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Procedures Agreement is in force since 1976 and on
many occasions in the past FAS, where in its view the
circumstances warranted, refused to attend a full Labour
Court hearing on the basis of a joint referral. (Details
supplied to the Court). Clause 8 gives that right to
either party as it states that "the matter may be referred
on the basis of a joint request."
2. There has never been a dispute between FAS and SIPTU
concerning the operation of the Procedure during the
lifetime of the agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submission made by the worker in
which it is asked to interpret the provisions of Clause 8
(Paragraph 2) of the FAS/SIPTU Industrial Relations Procedures
Agreement. The Court is satisfied that the wording of the
paragraph in question leaves the question of a reference to the
Court of any particular issue as a matter of choice of the
parties either of whom can validly refuse to support a reference
to the Court.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
29th June, 1992 ____________________
M.D./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman